[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a6c56e79-82b2-8572-fbce-4e4bbdc1774c@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 15:31:41 +0000
From: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
linux-power <linux-power@...rohmeurope.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] regulator: irq_helpers: Allow omitting map_event for
simple IRQs
On 11/18/21 17:20, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 03:14:02PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
>> On 11/18/21 15:35, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:48:26PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> leave out the sanity check regarding the conditions (only one common
>> error and only one rdev)? Or should we compare the given map function to
>> the adress of the map_event_simple() and perform checks if it matches?
>> It looks a bit strange to me. Or did you have some other vision?
>
> I don't really mind either way on the checks, they might help someone
> but on the other hand having them based on a check that a particular
> helper is used is a bit odd like you say so I wouldn't mind if they
> went. I don't really have any other idea for doing them.
That's fine. I'll drop the checks. If the caller uses the
map_event_simple() - then the caller should have checked it suits his
needs. Besides, these restrictions/expectations can be documented at
kerneldoc when map_event_simple() gets exported. I think that is sufficient.
I'll change these for next version.
Best Regards
Matti
--
The Linux Kernel guy at ROHM Semiconductors
Matti Vaittinen, Linux device drivers
ROHM Semiconductors, Finland SWDC
Kiviharjunlenkki 1E
90220 OULU
FINLAND
~~ this year is the year of a signature writers block ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists